The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge as nominated; any individual article may be placed in an appropriate subcat. if one exists. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to the main article (Old World warbler), this categorization is based on an abandoned taxonomic structure. Recommend deleting this category and merging the template with {{Sylvioidea-stub}}. Individual articles may be moved to appropriate categories that match current taxonomic allocations. Dawynn (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is not for Ember (a glowing, hot coal) but for a book series based on the novel The City of Ember. Renaming to match the head article (i.e. Category:The City of Ember) would be another option. Tassedethe (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow. Either option might do. Ember has too many meanings. It also refers to an effluent of the river Mole in Surrey and an important 18th century copper and iron processing mill in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Marlborough Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I wish we had a speedy criterion for these ppl-from-small-place categs. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are no skyscrapers in Montana. Wikipedia's Skyscraper article describes skyscrapers as "at least 40–50 floors". The tallest building in Montana has 22 floors. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as nominated. This categ has two subcats, and if @Dlabtot's rationale is correct in its assessment, then it applies equally to them. If all three categs are nominated together, then we can have a meaningful discussion ... this proposal would just orphan the two subcats. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was obvious that I was proposing deletion of the subcategories as well. The point is, there are no skyscrapers in Montana, therefore Wikipedia shouldn't say that there are. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlabtot: if you want to nominate a category, you need to tag it and list it. The subcats are not tagged and not listed, so they are not nominated. Instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there has been some depopulation of this category and its subcats by the nominator Dlabtot: [1], [2]. I have reverted those edits pending the outcome of this discussion. Pinging User:Hmains, who does a lot of categorisation of skyscrapers: it would be good to have your input on this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very sorry that I wasted my time nominating this category for deletion. The focus here is apparently on process rather than on improving the encyclopedia. It seems to me pretty obvious that an eight story building like the Wilma Theatre should not be categorised as a skyscraper. Dlabtot (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlabtot: Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. There's not much point in launching a consensus-forming discussion if you have already implemented your desired outcome. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
please stop mentioning my name in your comments; I'd prefer not to receive alerts about a conversation that I'm sorry I started and to which I have nothing constructive to add. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's using an unreasonably restrictive definition of "skyscraper". The whole significance of the Ingalls Building (sixteen storeys) is that it's the world's first reinforced concrete skyscraper, the Wainwright Building (ten storeys) is important because it's one of the world's oldest extant skyscrapers, and the Home Insurance Building (ten storeys when built, later expanded to twelve) is famous because it was Chicago's first skyscraper. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep per well discussed reasons by Nyttend. The Skyscraper is, per WP policy, not a reliable source. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: We don't need that much precision this far ahead. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care. There's also Category:2099 in science and backwards. It's mainly astronomical events that can be accurately predicted ahead like this. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So how far ahead do we sustain by-year categorsiation? Year 3100? 9100?
We can gave articles on these topics without having a whole nest of by-year categories underneath them. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFF currently exists, this is just WP:TOOSOON when the year isn't even going to arrive for over 8 decades, and few (if any) predictions can be viably made about scientific achievements for that time period so far in advance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the wrong forum to discuss this issue. Many articles about future astronomical events have been created, apparently, and while it is perhaps reasonable to nominate these articles for deletion as "too soon", for now it is a fact that these articles exist and need to be categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Marcocapelle, they do need to be categorised. But when it gets that far ahead, and the events are relatvley sparse, they'd be better categorised by century rather than by year. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe by decade, given the amount of articles produced. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:2100s in scienceprovided this is a sample nom. This needs to be done with all such categories for 2030 and beyond. In any other context I might have cited CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion, but we do have a significant number of articles on predicted eclipses. In the 2020s, there are also certain articles on space flight, presumably on when probes (already launched) are expected to reach planets they are targeted on. We can expect no more content for these categories for many years, so that they will remain small categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely agree with Peterkingiron on the sample aspect, this requires follow-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete and merge as appropriate. Ireland men's national ice hockey team makes it clear that the sport is struggling in Ireland. It is not clear that this is a professional sport, so that season categories are inappropriate. This appears to be a sport operating on an all-Ireland basis, so that RoI and NI splits would also be inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by Disney Television Animation[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Disney Television Animation and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your reasoning does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by It's a Laugh Productions[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: It's a Laugh Productions and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Disney–ABC Domestic Television and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Lucasfilm and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney, and Lucasfilm has a separate history predating its acquisition by Disney. Also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by Saban Entertainment[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series.ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Saban and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney, and Saban has a separate history predating its acquisition by Disney. Also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Also, Disney no longer owns several of Saban's properties. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television series by ABC Signature Studios[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ABC Signature Studios and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ABC Studios and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC) [[reply]
Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,[1]The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Disney is the parent category and should not be merged with one of its subdivisions. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, random collection of finance terms, has nothing to do with the Dutch East India Company apart from the fact that the company was the first to issue stock. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "most". I agree Isaac Le Maire is related to the company, but the rest of it is about stock market issues generally, not about the company specifically. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. The recent creator of Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company (and the equally problematic Category:Financial history of the Dutch Republic) keeps stuffing them into articles with little or no apparent connection, in a vain attempt to disprove the redundancy with Category:Dutch East India Company and a forest of related categories, as though every feature of the modern stock market should automatically be credited to 17th-century Dutch Tulip traders. The user's probable sock account did the same thing before recently being blocked. I try to delete the unsourced article categorizations periodically, but it would be better if the spam categories themselves were deleted, once and for all. —Patrug (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lithuanian national athletics champions[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Being national champion is not a defining characteristic for an athlete, since for most countries in the world (including Lithuania), virtually every notable athlete will also be a natonal champion.. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is awkwardly named and there is a scheme using the phrase "Christian music" (including one of the parent cats.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I was expecting there to be a misguided distinction here between "Christian music songwriters" and "songwriters who happen to be Christian in their personal lives but don't make Christian music per se" — but on actually examining the category I see no identifiable evidence of that, and even if I did it wouldn't be a good basis for a category anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Christian songwriters" would be more prone to that — it's precisely why the clarifier "music" is present in the middle, to clarify the distinction between Christian as a genre of music and Christian as a property of the songwriter, when we actually don't do the same for e.g. Category:Jazz songwriters or Category:Rock songwriters. (We do for Category:Country music songwriters, but that's because "Country songwriters" could potentially get confuzzled with Category:Songwriters by nationality.) "Music" would be redundant if it were there to modify "songwriters" rather than "Christian". Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Mecklenburg-Schwerin), 2nd class[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Non-defining, 2nd-tier decoration. None of the subjects are known for having received this award. Created by a user who seems to have started multitudes of such categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
